Not important who wrote this:
As far as some of these other comments, it's just more of that stuff you hate to see happening in a community. These suggestions that the board isn't accountable or transparent or listening or answering questions, the assumption you can find a real question that doesn't sound like "When did you stop beating your wife?"
The insinuations that have been made in this thread by some are not quickly forgotten and it does not erase insult to follow with kudos and claims of respect. This is why I shared that video
I think we need to grow up.
1) Directors need to be accountable and the operations of a not-for-profit transparent to engender trust. It comes with the territory.
From OSM's about us page
OSM will also engage in regular self-assessment to ensure it is accountable to Joomla!, acting in Joomla!'s interest and ensuring that it is the right shape and size to support Joomla!.
Where there is 'mistrust,' questions from the community or concerns expressed, accountability
means that either a) there are good answers for; or b) there is an acknowledgement that these areas need to be addressed.
2) There are obvious issues and concerns, gaps between what's set out in the by-laws now and what takes place in practice, including how OSM needs to be to move forward.
This is not akin to 'mistrust of directors' - it's about asking pertinent questions and having a discussion of those issues, where the gaps are and how OSM can move forward.
A lot of people don't even know about the Governance Working Group - I do not see mention of it on the OSM web site. I believe a description of the GWG on the OSM web site and an invitation to participate there would go a long way to answering questions, helping to alleviate concerns and providing transparency.
Why not list this under the OSM FAQ's as well - (i.e. What efforts at OSM are currently going on to move towards membership acceptance and elections for OSM Directors? and How can one join the Governance Working Group?).
That group appears to me to be doing great work! Let's make sure people in the community are aware of that.
3) "insinuations that have been made in this thread by some are not quickly forgotten
Grow up. Honestly.
Where I feel we can move forward:
1) I don't see, from the information that I've received, that there is any 'wrongdoing,' or 'mal-intentions' on the part of any OSM Director - quite the opposite.
Among other emails of the same nature, and in response to a post on the dev thread, I've received emails from people in the community which state
OSM has been a closed, in-bred, self-serving group since they "stole" control of Joomla!!!!
So the perception is there, at least by some. Whether this perception is true or not, I do not personally know. I do know that personally, I have not been satisfied with the answers.
However, instead of getting upset about these comments, I have yet to see OSM Directors demonstrate clearly for anybody that the above concerns are not warranted - assurances are great - but outside of personal assurances, is there any Director on the OSM Board that can do so?
If not, then I would respectfully and politely suggest that it is
a) correct to express those concerns; and
b) a good thing for any OSM Board member to recognize that in order to gain the trust of the broader community, that these questions need good answers.
These suggestions that the board isn't accountable or transparent...the assumption you can find a real question that doesn't sound like "When did you stop beating your wife?"
Here is the sum total of the accountability and transparency for OSM elections on the OSM Web Site
10. How are the directors of the board appointed?
In future, the directors of the board will be elected by the members of Open Source Matters.
11. Who oversees the board?
The board was previously overseen by a structure called the Community Oversight Committee (COC).
In other words, the OSM Board is
, as a matter of fact, right now a) closed; b) self-appointing; and c) without oversight - by it's own admission.
In response, folks are expressing legitimate concerns - their
concerns. They are stakeholders. They have every right to subject 10 and 11 above to scrutiny, to challenge the current circumstances - and to request accountability from OSM Directors to include a clearly defined pathway for change.
This is not akin to asking a director a question such as "So when did you last beat your wife."
This is not akin to 'mistrust' of the current directors.
This is not akin to 'bullying.'
This is not akin to making 'insinuations.'
It's simply what responsible and attentive stakeholders do.
My thoughts are as follows:
OSM Directors need to acknowledge the issues of concern and communicate how they are addressing this matters.
Points 10 and 11 above come from the Frequently Asked Question on the OSM web site - so it's safe to assume that OSM recognizes these very questions are being 'frequently asked' by the community.
I believe that there are truly remarkable people serving as OSM Directors, so my hope quite simply, is that on OSM's next regular self-assessment as to how they can be more accountable to the community - Board Directors simply acknowledge that these concerns exist and come up with appropriate solutions.
Accountability and transparency means that you are able to acknowledge the concerns and provide clear and concise answers, when requested and in an easy to find place.
For example, there is a lot of information that people do not know
a) The structure of governance for OSM and Joomla! Working Groups. In fact, the very classification of OSM as Joomla! Working Group gives one the impression that OSM is subordinate - when it is not.
OSM is self-governing. Importatnly, OSM is also responsible for accepting money (which can be large sums) and distributing money, on behalf of the entire Joomla! Community - but yet it is a 'self-appointed' 'self-governed' small group of Directors with zero oversight
, people, most of whom have personal financial interests in Joomla!
This is not an insinuation - it is a fact - and a circumstance that needs to be dealt with.
It is natural that the broader community would subject such a circumstance to scrutiny and criticism.
This set up is not 'typical' of not-for-profit membership based groups. It is toxic and it is dangerous.
In the event, and this is speaking purely hypothetically, that OSM were to be defrauded by directors (which would mean that money would not go for the intended purposes of OSM), a post mortem report would identify the failure to address the current circumstance as the primary factor which allowed such events to happen.
Again, no 'insinuations' are being made.
Responsible stakeholders address these matters head-on.
Accountable and diligent Directors have good answers.